Re: Re-Releasing PEAR packages under the BSD license

Hi, Can we move forward on this? Given this last message ("This is inherently an issue with the GPL"), I take it we agree there's incompatibility. -- Sylvain On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 08:25:06PM +0100, Sylvain Beucler wrote: > On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 09:58:40AM -0800, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > Sylvain Beucler wrote: > > > I think that there is an issue, admittedly not obvious, but that, > > > using PHP professionally, I care about. > > > > > > Whether you agree or not, in any case, I still think it would clarify > > > the situation to re-release PHPL'd packages under the modified BSD. > > > > Then we'll have to agree to disagree. This is inherently an issue with > > the GPL, not with the PHP license. The Apache/PHP license allows > > derived works with only a single restriction: use your own brand. I > > really don't want to drop that as we have a constant battle trying to > > fight perceived software quality issues and when software we don't > > control use our brand it becomes impossible to manage. > > > Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear: this isn't about PHP. > > > I have nothing to say about the PHP license as used by PHP. As we just > pointed it doesn't impact php apps under the GPL, thanks to the GPL > explicit exception about the underlying programming language. > > I know that there were requests for changes in the PHP License itself > in the past but that's a separate issue and I'm not involved with > that. > > > Now, when applied to a PEAR package, the branding clauses of the PHP > License, besides being pointless in that context, cause > incompatibility with the GNU GPL. > > Since PHPL'd packages are not part of the PHP language itself, that > GPL exception does not apply, hence the incompatibility. > > > So, I'm simply asking whether those PEAR packages under the PHPL, and > owned by the PHP group, could be re-released under the mBSD to ease > their use in GPL'd apps.